that it's been so long since I posted a great column by the fabulous Miss C.

Having given up on pillorying Mitt Romney for plundering his way to vast wealth -- because, unfortunately, it isn't true -- the NFM (Non-Fox Media) seem to have settled on denouncing him as a rich jerk.

Liberals are disgusted by people who made their own money, as Romney did at Bain Capital. But they admire ill-gotten gains, which is how John Kerry, John Edwards, Jon Corzine, John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt and innumerable other spokesmen for the downtrodden amassed their fortunes.

Democrats are very proud of the rich, patrician FDR -- who inherited all of his money and then launched a series of federal entitlements designed to bankrupt America 60 years later.

JFK also inherited his wealth, from a father who made his money as a bootlegger and stock manipulator. (In their defense, both men went on to create lots of jobs for bartenders and prostitutes.)

Kerry is in a special category of the gigolo. He acquired his fortune by marrying someone, who married someone, who inherited the money -- leading Kerry's children to refer to Teresa Heinz Kerry as their "step-money." In what can only be described as sheer luck, Kerry's first wife was also an heiress.

I've been diligently searching for the shrieks of horror from the media over John Kerry's tax returns when he ran for president eight years ago, but I can't find anything. (Although I did find a reference to Kerry's having served in Vietnam. Anybody else hear about that?)

Even when Kerry refused to release his wife's tax returns in order to avoid the humiliation of revealing his allowance, the press was demurely silent.

John Edwards made well over $50 million by shaking down hardworking doctors with junk science lawsuits -- as The New York Times has since admitted. The highlight of his carnival sideshows was when he channeled unborn children in front of illiterate jurors. (In the Democrats' moral universe, the unborn have no right to life, but they're perfectly acceptable as witnesses for the plaintiff in a malpractice suit.)

As I recall, Democrats were overjoyed with Wall Street financier-turned Democratic politician Jon Corzine. It was just three years ago, in 2009, when President Obama was hailing Corzine as one of the "best partners I have in the White House."

Today, prosecutors are trying to find out what Corzine did with hundreds of millions of his customers' money.

The media do everything they can to avoid looking into these mountebanks when they are active politicians. Then, when they're out of office, the NFM summarily announce that they always knew the Democrats were sleazeballs, and why are we still talking about them?

It's never a good time to talk about Democrat plutocrats until it's way too late to talk about them.

With Corzine, we'll have a window of three seconds to talk about his financial shenanigans. He's innocent until proved gui -- Convicted! -- What? You're still burbling about that guy?

Liberals will be carrying on about Richard Nixon until we're all long dead. Why has the time passed for them to really examine the man who was their vice presidential candidate only eight years ago and was desperately seeking the presidential slot just four years ago?

Until we hear ferocious denunciations of FDR, JFK, Kerry, Edwards and Corzine, liberals have no business criticizing Bain Capital.

Maybe some people are irrationally offended by the rich, but Democrats aren't. This is the party of George Soros, Goldman Sachs and Nancy Pelosi!

The six wealthiest senators are all Democrats, half of whom married or inherited their money. Some of the multimillionaire Democrats are:

-- Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the sixth-richest senator, married her money.

-- Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., was a bogus dot-com multimillionaire, cashing out before the stock crashed.

-- Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., the ninth-richest senator, who failed to pay taxes on her private plane until she was caught last year, married her money.

Meanwhile, with few exceptions, Republicans either made money on their own or they don't have it.

It's not an accident that Democrats oppose a tax on wealth, which they have boatloads of, but strongly support taxes on income, something they typically do not have.

Democrats don't hate the rich; they are the rich, luxuriating in fortunes acquired by inheritance or marriage, fleecing the taxpayer, trial lawyer hucksterism or disreputable money manipulation. Their contempt is reserved for those who engage in honest work for a living, whom they accuse of "greed" for wanting to pay the government a little less.